Quote:
Originally Posted by bm bradley
what about restriction of free trade?
|
There are some concerns on my part but I dont think the agents have thought about Anti-Sherman litigation yet... it will happen though.
Quote:
actually I do NOT have contracts with the performers I use however the agencies DO, any financial or other liabilities are the responsibility of the agency CONTRACTING the performer..... think about that for a bit.
the agencies have had a pretty good free ride for some time now with responsibility, now they can all STEP UP. if an agent wants a model UNDER CONTRACT, let them cover health cost, social security, unemployment tax and all the other BENEFITS that CONTRACTED EMPLOYEES have.
when mike diamond sends a smell good plumber to my place to clean out a drain, I am NOT responsible for payroll taxes, unemployment, health insurance etc... that's on the company CONTRACTING the plumber.... mike diamond. why would I be responsible for any of this??? I have no legal contract here with anybody...
|
Thats just not true. There's several California precedents holding that actors/performers are employees of producers, even if its for just a day. The plumber anology just doesnt hold water with the courts. Plumbers are trained and licensed, performers are not. In California one of the requirements to be considered an IC is license. And that is not always true. Even though real estate agents are basically ICs there is a specific law in Cali that requires real estate agencies to cover their individual agents for work comp purposes, even if they are an IC for tax purposes.